Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU probes Oracle-Sun deal, cites open-source issue

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Tax loopholes is a whole new ordeal. Obama is doing good on that 1. Regulation for consumer safety is also important. I do not contest that.

    But anti-competitiveness? that's anti capitalism. Businesses are not puppets that the government uses to leech taxes and manipulate (which to a degree they do already). If thats what businesses start to become then very little businesses will spawn and innovation along with it. You start a business to buy the bread, not pay taxes or get surrounded by red tape. Multinationals or not, the point is right now you cant live without M$ or intel when it comes to the daily operations of society. The thought of losing money shouldn't even be considered because they have the power to cripple the countries that oppose them. and i'll tell you what, thats not good for the consumer but these 2 companies earned the stage they stand on. You cant have both a vibrant economy and an equal society, you can have something in the middle. This middle ground protects consumer safety and security as well as sponsor small business growth, which as i recall, is one of obamas hitting points. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to look at either extreme of the spectrum (nazi and commie), and see how it rly didn't work out for them.

    Ill make note, im a very liberal guy. But my eyes are open to the fact that western society runs on business. Not only that but business made western society what it is. This is accepted as fact.

    And based on that, what environment might endorse you to start a company (which might i add, was a huge topic on the 2008 USA election):

    A. Free market principals, make as much as you can or want. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety but you are free to grow as you wish beyond that.

    B. We endorse a competitive marketplace with choices. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety. If a company gets too large and anti-competitive then we will slow it down.

    If you chose (B), you are an idiot. I tried my best to minimise bias but the answer is so historically obvious it hits you in the face.

    Comment


    • #17
      The US does exactly the same than the EU poking around with big mergers. True the EU does it with anyone - not scared of messing with american giants such as microsoft and intel which in the US are too big to be regulated by your corrupt political system full of lobyists.

      But when a european company tries to buy a US one or do a big merger, look at what happens..... Fiat and Chrysler... Now they just couldnt stand the fact that their little star would get eaten by "fix it again tony"

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
        But anti-competitiveness? that's anti capitalism. Businesses are not puppets that the government uses to leech taxes and manipulate (which to a degree they do already)
        This is also to protect the consumer (you and me). And that's good. Capitalism is not always a good thing for the people at the bottom of the chain, so regulations need apply.

        Comment


        • #19
          Chrysler also had lots of debt with America, patents, who knows what else. For these reasons its no wonder they had to get involved. A similar thing happened when a chinese company wanted to buy some oil company a while back. It was stopped because it would mean the chinese could get technology that had military uses. This is protecting the people, not penalising a company for being too big. It came down to politics.

          Regulations are not puppetry. People at the bottom get shafted, there is a reason they are at the bottom, like it or not. They need an opportunity to get back on their feet but beyond that something happened in their life for them to be at the bottom. Equal opportunity does not need to equal equality (sounds funny doesn't it). Everyone has a chance to succeed in the market if they make the right decisions. intel and MS made the right decisions.

          A regulation could be considered how Canada managed its banking system and largely avoided the credit crisis (which as i recall, Europe largely fucked up on aswell). Our government stopped banks from doing these dangerous practices. They protected consumers. This is the job of a government, not to tell a company to pay a fine because they are anti competitive.

          @lordmozilla - I am not american, and i am very content knowing that. This is not my "corrupt political system full of lobyists". They have these stupid lobbyists because unlike many countries, personal freedoms are respected to an extreme. This is a major problem for the USA that needs to be addressed however your rant seems like just another anti-american slide. When the EU gets into bed with these major corporations it is doing so under the assumption that it will get what it wants. I said it and ill say it again, the world runs on MS/Intel. if an economy took out the systems it uses to operate then you have no economy.

          You can try this at home, use the TV remote. Now take out the batteries.

          Oh and by the way. Say the EU fined me $7,000,000 for being too competitive in say.... Hard disk manufacturing. Where does my $7,000,000 go? to my competitors? because I have a hunch it goes to the EU.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
            Multinationals or not, the point is right now you cant live without M$ or intel when it comes to the daily operations of society. The thought of losing money shouldn't even be considered because they have the power to cripple the countries that oppose them. and i'll tell you what, thats not good for the consumer but these 2 companies earned the stage they stand on.
            You think private interests of one corporation should be able to override public interests of a country?

            So are you saying that they should be allowed to expand without limit? Isn't that exactly the problem with the US economy at the moment? Lax regulation allowed some corporations to become "too big to fail"?

            Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
            You cant have both a vibrant economy and an equal society, you can have something in the middle. This middle ground protects consumer safety and security as well as sponsor small business growth, which as i recall, is one of obamas hitting points. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to look at either extreme of the spectrum (nazi and commie), and see how it rly didn't work out for them.
            I think you can have both. The current US system didn't work either . Plus, it's perfectly possible to have a system encouraging small business and regulating big business.

            Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
            Ill make note, im a very liberal guy. But my eyes are open to the fact that western society runs on business. Not only that but business made western society what it is. This is accepted as fact.
            In the US maybe, but I thought that was democracy & free speech?

            Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
            And based on that, what environment might endorse you to start a company (which might i add, was a huge topic on the 2008 USA election):

            A. Free market principals, make as much as you can or want. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety but you are free to grow as you wish beyond that.

            B. We endorse a competitive marketplace with choices. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety. If a company gets too large and anti-competitive then we will slow it down.

            If you chose (B), you are an idiot. I tried my best to minimise bias but the answer is so historically obvious it hits you in the face.
            Have you read the papers in the last two years?

            I think the options are more like this:
            A. Free market principals, make as much as you can or want. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety but you are free to grow as you wish beyond that. Corporations are free to grow so large that when they fail the government has two choices:

            - Allow the corporation to fail, costing millions of jobs, trillions of investors dollars and destroying the infrastructure that the corporation has invested in which also creates widespread panic in the market and major repercussions for the many other businesses relying on that corporation.

            - Bail out the business with taxpayer dollars to avoid massive damage to the economy, but in the process nullifying the "invisible hand" of the free market and encouraging other big businesses to take increased risks knowing that they can rely on bailouts because they are untouchable.

            B. Regulate the market so that no corporation can become too big to fail. If a company fails, the directors are the only ones held responsible for their own mistakes, any assets are liquidated and investors learn from their poor investment. ie. market forces are allowed to operate freely within some reasonable boundaries.

            Surely B is a better option. Of course, what option B's boundaries should be is another discussion.

            Comment


            • #21
              im speaking in general terms and am by NO WAY saying the American model is very good. I am saying however that the american model is the reason you own a car and have a dishwasher.

              You are once again confusing regulation and corporate interests. The american government fucked up in the bush administration, thats no secret. And as a result they have a nice massive debt they need to pay off, and good for them because they elected the bastard, twice. If those regulations have been in place like they had been with Canada then the subprime crisis would be less of a worry. Bad government is not no government. Do not confuse me with the shear stupidity of a bush voter.

              I never said you cant regulate big business. My argument is simply that you must let them grow as much as they can. Small business and large businesses need to be treated equally with exception of some taxes for smaller companies. The tax issue is to help encourage the growth of these companies so they can get to a point to pay fair taxes. Again, political issue.

              Democracy & free speech is a principal used all over the world now. many democratic free nations are poor as hell so thats proof that democracy alone doesnt make a country rich, it just gets the people involved.

              I do read papers and watch TV. And i can tell you that the government intervention in recent economic troubles is a direct consequence of the government not putting obvious legislation in place. Stupid republican government is not fair regulation. Fair regulation is protecting consumers and safety. Not passing good hedge fund, loan, ect. legislation or safeguards is your own dumb governments faults. Everyone knew what the banks where doing long before it all crashed on them.

              As you put it, B would be the correct answer. However with B you would have such little economy to begin with that people would go hungry.

              I had a hear of a good example of how important AIG was to the economy. They insured things like oil rigs, airline planes, ect. They lowered the risk for these companies so they could actually go ahead and be companies. because of this, airlines and oil companies have capacity to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Such assets or risk taking would never have existed. The worse case sinario is far better then the best case sinario without this.

              But i would like to assert that AIG messed up big, and everyone knew AIG was messing up. Stupid government is not an excuse for super-regulation.

              Comment


              • #22
                If the EU or any government wanted to collect fines, taxes, or whatever from a business operating in their jurisdiction, they would not have any problem debiting their money transfers. All large transactions are electronic, so garnishing part of any businesses cash flow would be relatively easy. ONCE they got a court order. Court costs and ensuing penalties could easily double or triple the actual fine then too. If a corporation wants to do business in a country, it has to play by the countries rules.

                The bigger the corporation, the more able it is to get the countries pols, or regulators to pass and/or enforce rules that favor it and discourage it's competitors. This has varying degrees of success, depending on the countries existing laws, local media, customs, etc., but once passed the laws can be enforced. Said enforcement being done according to the spirit of the law and good government principles or based on who gives the biggest bribes, usually a combination of both, In democracies with elected officials the ability of a pol to spin the passage of a law or, as in this case enforcement of an existing law, with protecting his constituency is a win, win for the pol. He gets to impress his constituency and secure campaign contributions from the corporation(s) his actions benefit.

                There is no free market. That's a fairy tale fed to consumers by the corporate interests. As long as the populace benefits and is content with the offerings, which is influenced by the media, cultural norms, etc., the corporations can siphon as much as they want out of the cash flow the citizenry generates. When they over reach and the facade comes tumbling down as it recently has with the mortgage crisis, the public has to be fed more bones and the most obvious inequities addressed.

                Monopolies are GREAT for the monopolist, bad for everyone else. They stifle innovation, encourage inequities in income, and when they get too obvious force the government (pols) to act, as they did breaking up Standard Oil at the beginning of the last century in the US.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                  I never said you cant regulate big business. My argument is simply that you must let them grow as much as they can. Small business and large businesses need to be treated equally with exception of some taxes for smaller companies. The tax issue is to help encourage the growth of these companies so they can get to a point to pay fair taxes. Again, political issue.
                  To use your example of Canada: Are you against the media ownership rules in Canada which came in last year?
                  ...a person or entity will be permitted to control only two of the three types of media outlets radio, TV, or newspapers in a single market.

                  ...one party would not control more than 45 per cent of the total television audience share as a result of a merger or acquisition.

                  ...That would prevent the country's two main satellite TV distributors Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice from merging.

                  "It is an approach that will preserve the plurality of editorial voices and the diversity of programming available to Canadians, both locally and nationally, while allowing for a strong and competitive industry," said CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein.
                  Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                  Democracy & free speech is a principal used all over the world now. many democratic free nations are poor as hell so thats proof that democracy alone doesnt make a country rich, it just gets the people involved.
                  I didn't say that it made anyone rich. Just that I think it's the foundation of western society.

                  Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                  I do read papers and watch TV. And i can tell you that the government intervention in recent economic troubles is a direct consequence of the government not putting obvious legislation in place. Stupid republican government is not fair regulation. Fair regulation is protecting consumers and safety. Not passing good hedge fund, loan, ect. legislation or safeguards is your own dumb governments faults. Everyone knew what the banks where doing long before it all crashed on them.
                  I think we agree here.

                  Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                  As you put it, B would be the correct answer. However with B you would have such little economy to begin with that people would go hungry.
                  That's not true. See my example above. Do you think that Canwest is going to collapse because of the new media ownership rules?

                  Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                  I had a hear of a good example of how important AIG was to the economy. They insured things like oil rigs, airline planes, ect. They lowered the risk for these companies so they could actually go ahead and be companies. because of this, airlines and oil companies have capacity to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Such assets or risk taking would never have existed. The worse case sinario is far better then the best case sinario without this.

                  But i would like to assert that AIG messed up big, and everyone knew AIG was messing up. Stupid government is not an excuse for super-regulation.
                  I don't think super-regulation is necessary. I know that the markets are completely different, but maybe if AIG hadn't been allowed to insure more than 45% of a market (whether it be oil/airlines etc.), then it could have been allowed to collapse without taking a huge chunk of the economy with it.

                  Also note that AIG's insurer eventually ended up being the US taxpayer.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    for the most part you are right. But you failed to read what i already wrote.

                    1. If global brands like MS or Intel where barred from selling in a particular jurisdiction. That jurisdiction would collapse.

                    2. Your argument about manipulating government is only true in cases where the government is bad. If the voter is stupid, the voter will get a stupid government. And to think only a little over 50% of people voted for Obama.....

                    3. You have no idea what your talking about. That conspiracy stuff may fly well in science fiction novels but it stops at that. Your basis behind that REQUIRES everyone in a particular jurisdiction to be evil. If all are bad then what is good? Once again, you need good government. The American example is getting tiresome to repeat.

                    3. Monopolies dont stifle innovation, thats a load of crap. I beg you to provide a real world example. If anything companies like google encourage this by providing trips and perks to its employees. This helps google become a better and larger company. Historically when a situation is bad, people are pressured with ways to solve it. For example, Soviet russia was a hell of alot better then the TSAR, people got motivated to throw the TSAR after they were treated like garbage.

                    BTW, if google can come up from nothing and now compete with M$, it must mean opportunity to be competitive exists. So if a company is top dog, it doesnt mean it will be forever.

                    Oh and 1 more thing. I would like an answer on where the corporate fines go to in the EU. I really am curious.

                    EDIT: gimme a sec to respond to second 1

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Canada is not my example. I used the canadian regulation model for bank regulations only. My country isnt perfect, we have elections almost yearly. But thats not the debate.

                      What is western society without the standard of living. They found that democracy like system had been practised by tribes so as a foundation for the west, maybe. But i think its largely due to the loaning of money. This funded exploration, business and built the massive empires.

                      Canada has a unique media problem, and its problems reside down south. Restrictions have been in place for some time revolving around Canadian identity and american media. I think after reading it, that it has more to do with politics. Shaw, largely services the conservative west while Bell caters more here in the east. What they dont tell you is Bell Expressvu is largely controlled by none other then Dish Network. You see the issues that arise? This problem in canada has less to do with business are more to do with cultural preservation. Im not one to take a swing on whatever they are doing tho. Its doing the same thing the americans did with china and europe and it is the right thing to do.

                      AIG would have been fine if the government wasnt sitting on its ass. I was watching CNN today, eliot spitzer i think it was, talked about how the government had the resources to prevent this from happening and diddnt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                        1. If global brands like MS or Intel where barred from selling in a particular jurisdiction. That jurisdiction would collapse.
                        I don't think a jurisdiction as large as the EU is afraid of that. I think instead that MS or Intel would do anything in their power to keep making money in a jurisdiction as large as the EU or US. See the ongoing MS Word case for example.

                        Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                        Oh and 1 more thing. I would like an answer on where the corporate fines go to in the EU. I really am curious.
                        From this page:
                        These fines go into the Community budget, help finance the EU and ultimately save taxpayers' money.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                          Canada has a unique media problem, and its problems reside down south. Restrictions have been in place for some time revolving around Canadian identity and american media. I think after reading it, that it has more to do with politics. Shaw, largely services the conservative west while Bell caters more here in the east. What they dont tell you is Bell Expressvu is largely controlled by none other then Dish Network. You see the issues that arise? This problem in canada has less to do with business are more to do with cultural preservation. Im not one to take a swing on whatever they are doing tho. Its doing the same thing the americans did with china and europe and it is the right thing to do.
                          So, if I understand you correctly, we agree that some regulation is the right thing? After all, if you just
                          Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                          let them grow as much as they can
                          then the Dish network could just take over Canadian broadcasting.
                          Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                          AIG would have been fine if the government wasnt sitting on its ass. I was watching CNN today, eliot spitzer i think it was, talked about how the government had the resources to prevent this from happening and diddnt.
                          So AIG should have been regulated more strongly by the government? That's what I've been saying!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            That reverts back to page 1 when i was asking the very question, why do they even bother. Greed is the obvious answer. Let them do what they want i suppose, they are big and powerful because they are smart like that.

                            So lemme clear this up. The EU fines the corporations X amount of euros. And then spends it on itself.

                            When you go to court against another person, you are prolly asking for child support money or god knows what. Now the judge says u owe $5000. You pay the court. The woman doesnt get the money. Is that fair?

                            In the case of intel, AMD was the only real competitor. AMD received didley squat. VIA received didley squat. IBM received didley squat. Sun received didley squat. While the EU padded its taxpayers with the good old USD.

                            From a moral perspective, I call that stealing.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by krazy View Post
                              So, if I understand you correctly, we agree that some regulation is the right thing? After all, if you just then the Dish network could just take over Canadian broadcasting.
                              So AIG should have been regulated more strongly by the government? That's what I've been saying!
                              Growing a company has nothing to do with a culture. What if pepsico started running christian oriented campaigns in Saudi Arabia.. Government needs to protect its people, and in canadas case its an identity issue. Dishnetwork can grow all it wants, in the USA. it doesnt need to be in canada, mexico or good knows where else to grow if it plays its cards right. Thats a governments decision. The EU could bar M$ at any time. Will they do it? no. they cant. Blocking a possible takeover by American media, yea , Canada can prevent that. A large company doesnt need to be multinational, it can be very localised. All of which is a factor in the creation of the business to begin with. You need to trust me when i say the crtc is doing a cultural favour. Everything, even the commercials on American programming cater to a Canadian audience.

                              More regulated and properly regulated are different. My cause is against the arbitrary fines against companies. What we agree on is patching the stupid holes in the legal system.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                                In the case of intel, AMD was the only real competitor. AMD received didley squat. VIA received didley squat. IBM received didley squat. Sun received didley squat. While the EU padded its taxpayers with the good old USD.

                                From a moral perspective, I call that stealing.
                                I disagree. Intel knew the laws in the EU and chose to break them. It's just that the EU has much stronger 'antitrust' laws than the US.
                                Intel could easily just stop doing business in the EU, but they won't because there is still money to be made in obeying the law (or breaking it and paying a fine. I'm sure Intel made more money breaking the law than they lost in that fine).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X